Once More, Luxury Brands Like Cartier, Dunhill, Montblanc, Dupont

[brescd01]

Forgive me I completely ruined my previous thread through typos and misunderstandings so I am trying again.

 

I HATE cartridge converters. They never hold enough ink, they are common, I don't need any more.

 

I wondered if there are any models from famous luxury brands currently being produced that do NOT use cartridge converters?

[jar]

Forgive me I completely ruined my previous thread through typos and misunderstandings so I am trying again.

 

I HATE cartridge converters. They never hold enough ink, they are common, I don't need any more.

 

I wondered if there are any models from famous luxury brands currently being produced that do NOT use cartridge converters?

 

Not those three, thank God.

 

You do know that most cartridges hold more ink than piston or many other type filling systems don't you?

[JLS1]

Both MB & Pelikan still make piston-filler FPs, and I think they'd fall under the "Premium/Luxury" label. That said, if you're really into ink capacity, eye-droppers have way more capacity than piston-fillers: if you need a "Luxury" eye-dropper, consider a Danitrio Urushi eye-dropper pen, like these.

[brescd01]

I don't have that much exerience but I have never seen a cartridge-converter pen that had a fraction of the ink capacity of any other ink filling system. According to reviews of the Montblank 149, it's piston filler holds an enormous amount of ink. Eye droppers are messy.

[jar]

I don't have that much exerience but I have never seen a cartridge-converter pen that had a fraction of the ink capacity of any other ink filling system. According to reviews of the Montblank 149, it's piston filler holds an enormous amount of ink. Eye droppers are messy.

 

That is a commonly held belief but not quite accurate.

 

One of our members here (sorry but have forgotten who it was) once measured several pens for capacity and here is what he posted:

 

 

 

I had a pen cleaning session, and while flushing some of them, I decided to measure the volume of water I could expel from each. This therefore does not include any residual volume in the nib/feed assembly, which I estimate at around 0.17 to 0.2 cc depending on size. There were some surprises, as you will see!

In order of ascending volume:

MB Kafka: 0.88

MB Hemingway: 1.26

MB Dumas: 1.26

MB Twain: 1.35

MB Lennon: 1.39

MB Shaw: 1.48

MB 149: 1.60

 

I also looked at the volumes of some cartridges, not the sold ink volume, but an empty cartridge filled with water and aspirated:

Standard converter: 0.75

International short: 0.87

Sheaffer slim: 1.20

Parker: 1.47

Sheaffer standard: 1.50

International long: 1.66

 

I used a 1.00 cc insulin syringe, calibrated in 0.01cc, and compensated for the needle volume. I repeated the measurements twice on each, and they were consistent.

 

We often make assumptions about ink capacity based on appearance of the pen, or the cartridge/converter for that matter, so I found this very interesting indeed!

 

The Montblanc 149 and 146 both hold the same amount of ink and most cartridge/converter pens will hold two small cartridges for 1.2-1.6cc of ink.

[brescd01]

Not to be argumentative, but Brian @ Edison Pens has a guide that supports the idea that converters hold the least ink. He offers the guide to clients so that they can select their own filling system for custom pens. My experience is clear, my converter pens do not hold nearly as much ink as my pens using other systems. The only wrinkle I cannot speak to is the Parker 51's aerometric filler, I am not sure about that one.